|
Overview of International Comparative Animal Cruelty Laws |
Overview of the comparison between US animal cruelty laws and those in Europe. Specifically, laws of the US, EU, Germany, Norway and Switzerland are addressed. The comparison is based around companion animal and confinement farming laws, transportation and slaughter.
|
|
Overview of Legal Challenges to Farm Animal Welfare Laws |
This overview introduces the legal challenges to farm animal welfare laws. It begins with a discussion of the means by which farm animal welfare laws are enacted. Next, there is a discussion of the forms of farm animal confinement that welfare laws are aimed at phasing out of the agriculture industry. Then, it explores the current legal framework at the state and federal level that affords welfare protections to farm animals. There is then a discussion of the legal challenges that are brought to challenge these laws, and an exploration of some example cases. Lastly, the latest Supreme Court case, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, is examined. |
|
Overview of the Legal Protections of the Domestic Chicken in the United States and Europe |
An overview of the state and federal laws that currently offer protection to the domestic chicken, whether used for food production, as pets or as research animals. The paper examines laws in the United States and Europe.
|
|
Overview of Welfare Concerns of Fish Farms |
This overview explains welfare issues surrounding commercial fish farms. It then suggests that fish, like other species, must have their basic needs met through recognizing the Five Freedoms. |
|
Overview of Wildlife Services |
This overview describes the role and function of Wildlife Services within the USDA. It briefly outlines the creation of the agency as the body that administers the Animal Damage Act of 1931. The document then outlines the methods of control of livestock, including lethal and non-lethal methods. Concern over two particular methods of wildlife control - "denning" and use of M-44 cyanide capsules - are included and how animal welfare organizations have responded to the controversy. Finally, the paper concludes with a description of the progress several counties in California have made to control damage by wildlife without resorting to WS policy and control methods. |
|
PA - Humane Slaughter - Slaughter and Processing of Domestic Animals |
These laws comprise Pennsylvania's humane slaughter provisions. The section begins with the enabling statute that grants authority to the relevant state agency. It then declares that humane methods shall be used in the handling of domestic animals for slaughter and in the actual bleeding and slaughter of domestic animals except in the cases of slaughter for ritual purposes or individual (e.g., non-commercial) consumption. The law itself does not proscribe penalties for non-compliance (but such may be listed in departmental regulations). |
|
Park v. Moorman Mfg. Co. |
Plaintiffs sued defendant corporation for breach of warranty as to fitness of purpose of poultry feed concentrate after egg production dropped, hens became malnourished, and an unusual amount of picking and cannibalism developed. As to the issue of damages, the Supreme Court held instruction that plaintiff was entitled to damages in amount of market value of chickens destroyed and that provided formula by which market value of suitable replacements could be determined was correct.
|
|
Parker v. Obert's Legacy Dairy, LCC |
A neighboring landowner brought a nuisance claim against a dairy farm when the dairy farm decided to expand its operations; the dairy farm, however, used Indiana’s Right to Farm Act as an affirmative defense. Agreeing with the dairy farm, the trial court granted the dairy farm’s motion for summary judgment. Upon appeal, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
|
|
Perez v. County of Monterey |
In this California case, the plaintiffs sued to challenge the validity of the County of Monterey rooster-keeping ordinance, seeking a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional. The ordinance limits residents to no more than four roosters on a single property without a rooster keeping permit and also describes care and keeping requirements. The trial court found that the ordinance did not violate the constitution and entered judgment for the City. Plaintiffs here appeal that decision, arguing that the ordinance: (1) takes property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) infringes on Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce; (3) violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (4) is a prohibited bill of attainder; and (5) violates the rights to privacy and to possess property guaranteed by the California Constitution. With respect to the Fifth Amendment taking challenge, the court found that the regulatory takings argument failed because there is no evidence that the ordinance affected plaintiffs or that they even applied for or were eligible for a permit. As to the interstate commerce challenge, plaintiffs provided no evidence that the ordinance would cause excess roosters to be divested from owners and sold in commerce to support this claim. As to Equal Protection, the plaintiffs correctly assert that the ordinance treats people differently based on age (i.e., students engaged in 4-H or FFA activities are exempted from the four-rooster limitation). However, the court found that the county stated a legitimate objective of public health and safety and this differential treatment of a non-suspect class advances that interest. Finally, the court found the ordinance was not a bill of attainder since it prospectively regulates roosters and also that it does not violate California's right to privacy and property possession. Indeed, the court found that plaintiff did not identify a specific privacy interest implicated by the ordinance. Thus, the judgment was affirmed. |
|
Petersheim v. Corum |
Driver struck bull that had wandered onto a public highway and driver was killed. Court of appeals ruled for wife in a wrongful death action against the bull's owner. The owner had a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent the bull's escape.
|
